|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
she obviously at this point prioritizes freedom and hates the inability to change the Dragon order. sure she has a code but the code has largely chaotic ideals(equality, respecting your charges) that.
Respecting your charges is perfectly compatible with a lawful ethic. See for example noblesse obligee, the idea that because you have social rank and privilege you have a responsibility to those of the lower class. The character hates bullying but that's not the same thing as demanding actual equality - and I don't see a value for freedom anywhere.
seeing how ethically/morally opposed they are I find it hard pressed to think she could share evil or lawful with them.
Stalin and Hitler hated each other. I think most people would consider both of them LE.
Personally, I hold that she's neutral because she's effectively acting as LG for fifty-odd weeks of the year. It's the other two weeks, when a Guard or noble comes into town, that she shifts to acting LE. Hence, LN.
That raises an interesting question - to what extent can good acts compensate for evil ones? Are there any acts evil enough that they can't be compensated for? Atonement of course is a different beast, since it indicates that you regret an act and intend to avoid committing it again in the future - the character in question does not regret her actions but thinks that she can justify them by doing enough good elsewhere.
If a vampire kills two people a year, and saves fifty lives a year, what alignment are they?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
kestral287: it's the trial for the assassination-gone-bad that I don't recall...
Looking back,
Her dreams shattered, she made her return to her village. Dismissal not enough for some of the conspirators, they attempt to then assassinate her but are killed by her in the attempt. She's charged in absentia for their murders, but not really pursued as those in charge prefer to simply let the matter be at rest.
I didn't see that as a legally-binding death-warrant, but rather some charges were presented, but those "in charge" recognized the wrongness of the whole thing but, for political reasons, couldn't return those charges against those who sent the assassins, and thus dismissed said charges.
Kazaan: that is a really interesting breakdown. I don't know that I agree with either it or all of the terminology used, but it's very interesting nonetheless.
EDIT: adding clarity, necessary due to ninja gobbos!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one thing I'm curious about. I may have missed it in the OP's posts somewhere, but does she have an "official" death-warrant on her head, yet, or merely the (presumably illegal?) assassination attempts? It was my understanding that she was thrown out but not condemned to death... except by a few acting illegally.
The way I see it in my head she was dismissed from the Dragon Guard and while she was in the midst of returning to her village is when some corrupt members of the guard tried to murder her. She killed most of the would-be assassins but didn't pursue those that fled - who in turn reported back to their superiors that she was the aggressor who killed them out of revenge. Murder of her fellow guardsmen was added to the list of offenses that was used to justify kicking her out in the first place, but they didn't pursue her after that out of a combination of knowing the truth about the incident, desire to put things behind them, and fear of her. So she was never officially charged with murder, and instead the story was concocted that she attempted to murder her fellow guardsmen and was killed in the attempt.
She's not really aware of all of that; she simply fought off her attackers and continued back toward her village.
One thing I think may be relevant is that in order to protect her village from suspicion is that she waits until after visiting guard/nobles she marks for death leave her village and carefully plans their executions to ensure their deaths are unlikely to be traced back to her village, even if it means waiting weeks for the opportunity. So even though she's driven by anger and hatred, she's not stupid.
Actually, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, so yes, making a bill of rights is exactly the same as making a law.Indeed I suggest that a stable democracy must be at least neutral on the law-chaos access because without basic rights guarantees and trust that those guarantees will be stable, a democracy will fail.that's chaotic, making a Bill of rights is not the same as making a Law.
not really, your making a Law against the governing body not it's citizenry. you can't be charged with breaking the bill of rights. so it's a Law against authority, it's kind of ULTRA chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She basically has to do this to survive, honestly. Even then it's a gamble-- do those in power know where she is and that she isn't, ah, particularly fond of them?
Haven't really thought that far into it yet. So far this is all just a hypothetical in my head; she doesn't yet exist in my game and there is no Dragon Guard - though if I continue to develop this little story I'll likely find somewhere to include it.
What I was going for originally is a morally complex character to present to my group when the time is right - someone whom the PCs will sit and debate among themselves as to what the best course of action is toward approaching the entire situation. As it stands, I'm really liking the idea of her being LE and glad that LE being her alignment seems to be the most common response. The PCs are pretty much good and neutral alignments (CG barb, LN magus, NG sorc, N inqu, NG cleric, N ranger) so her being LE but having a sympathetic backstory can serve - I'm hoping - to divide up the party nicely.
no what you fail to realize is she WOULD be taking them down in less extreme methods, however, it's either kill them, get the town in trouble(by merely assaulting or threatening nobles, or trying to take legal routes) or surrender to the nobles. she won't do the second and the third option is apathetic.Your argument seems to hinge on this claim, that it is basically either murder, failure, or surrender. Can you explain why there are no other possible options other than those three?
For instance, it seems to me that - just for a quite random example - one could react to a passing knight mouthing off to a shopkeeper by sneaking into his camp, two nights on down the road, and leaving fire ants in his bedroll.
Or by following him and knocking him out in his sleep once he's in a different area, then stealing his sword and knightly accoutrements, forcing him to return home in skivvies and disgrace.
Or... you get the picture. There's frankly tons of ways to mete out secretive vigilante justice that don't involve murdering people for being disrespectful.
I don't quite see why she actually CAN'T use less extreme punishments for such minor violations, and why they all have to result in someone getting stabbed in the eyes.
Well, other than, as the OP explained it, her immense hatred. I would suspect that's probably the real reason she isn't using any of a number of less extreme responses that she could be using.
those don't solve the issue though, they'll probably or at least could try to pressure the area to find out who did it. leaving fire ants especially doesn't do anything. so all of those are essentially failure.
it;s been clarified that "minor violations" are acts against the citizenry, such as extorting businesses or just plain abusing position to injure civilians without any consequences.
the Dragon guard don't have traditions like "clean up after your self" they're simply charge with respecting and protecting those they have.
@ protectign your charges is lawful, yes it generally is, but not when you want to protect all of them over the lawful order of things.
in essence because she favors her charges over the lawful order or caste system she believes in chaos due to seeing the wrongness that the nobles impose from their order.
@ Hitler versus Stalin, they both "hated" each other in that they both were totalitarian dictators with desires to own the same land(they even signed a non-aggression pact with each other and Germany agreed to give half of Poland to Russia in exchange). also Nationalist Socialist and Stalinist Socialism do not fall cleanly on the alignment scale(they both have bits from all over the place for different situations).
basically they hated each other for practical reasons, not ethical and moral ones like I was saying. (the emphasis was on her having strong ethical and moral objections to the overt Lawful Evil actions of the nobility)
Not really on topic but I find it humorous that over time and various rpg formats "Neutral" has been watered down and is now stated by many to be an easy alignment. When originally it was the hardest as playing a true neutral is striking a balance between all forces and is almost in human.
As to this thread I see the actions as definitely Lawful as to whether they are good or Evil is hard to say with out more detail I personally see her as Good. A dedication to protect both her immediate community and the Nation at large
I guess i'll try to explain what i think the alignments are.
Good - anything that promotes life or opportunity, with the end goal being in general and not for yourself. Leaders tend to help their people for their people. Ideals of prosperity and community.
Neutral - anything that promotes your life or opportunity. leaders tend to help their people to help their nation.Ideals of economics and industry.
Evil - anything the promotes your life and opportunity with the explicit attempt to do it by taking other's life or opportunity. Leaders attempt to help their nation to help their people(essentially nationalist soclialism). Ideals of military strength or Pride.
Lawful - A desire to see order and stability, to see things go unchanged. supporting the parties in power is lawful but so can supporting other legitimate parties or even yourself if you can be considered legitimate. Leaders want strict laws and for them to be followed, in general a nation will have a strong central governing body, with ideals of stability.
Neutral - A desire to see order gained through mutual benefit, in essence you want order via the government, but for the citizenry or the society creates the drive for progress. Leaders tend to create laws with intent to organize the social order but only to strengthen it. ideals of freedom and strength usually permeate these governments.
Chaotic - a desire to see the social order create or empower the governing body. citizens are free to do mostly what they want, but are expected to drive the society forward through their own work. generally you have ideals of equality and and self-motivation or possibility. Leaders tend to delegate power and listen to the people on what they desire to happen.
alignment doesn't apply to a person to person scale as everything get's more personal on that level, a person's alignment is determined by their view on the big picture. organizations are "people" in this as well, someone hating a specific group of clowns doesn't mean anything, but someones feelings on clowns in general does impact their alignment. so likewise her not liking the dragon guard is personal, her hatred of nobles however, it not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really on topic but I find it humorous that over time and various rpg formats "Neutral" has been watered down and is now stated by many to be an easy alignment. When originally it was the hardest as playing a true neutral is striking a balance between all forces and is almost in human.
As to this thread I see the actions as definitely Lawful as to whether they are good or Evil is hard to say with out more detail I personally see her as Good. A dedication to protect both her immediate community and the Nation at large
Neutral is easy as is minding your business and being reluctant in going out of your way to do something for/against others. Or more broadly disinterest in moral and ethics focusing instead on different themes like nature or science.
Actively doing equal amounts of good and evil in order to stay in the middle is almost insanity
Not really on topic but I find it humorous that over time and various rpg formats "Neutral" has been watered down and is now stated by many to be an easy alignment. When originally it was the hardest as playing a true neutral is striking a balance between all forces and is almost in human.
As to this thread I see the actions as definitely Lawful as to whether they are good or Evil is hard to say with out more detail I personally see her as Good. A dedication to protect both her immediate community and the Nation at large
it's because with growing media awareness people are more and more aware than in general people are neutral, not good or evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actively doing equal amounts of good and evil in order to stay in the middle is almost insanity
I'd have to agree that deliberately doing so is pretty nuts, but I expect a lot of neutral people do end up in that category because they've had moments of both altruism and jerkishness. It's just that there's a big difference between someone who just does that as part of life, and someone who says "I gave money to that beggar, so now I need to insult one of my co-workers to balance it out."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OP, I'd suggest you make your decision based on the standards you want to set for your game.
Evil is EVIL: Earning an evil alignment requires a person to perform repeated and significant evil acts, and very little good. Morally ambiguous characters are neutral instead. This means that a good party might find themselves opposed to creatures who aren't evil - but that when they do run into an evil entity they can be confident that it needs to be stopped.
Evil is Easy: It takes relatively few missteps to fall into evil, even if you're trying to do the right thing. Knowing that someone is evil doesn't tell you that they're on the wrong side. The party may encounter and side with well-intentioned extremists of evil alignment. However because it's so easy to become evil a good party can be confident that most of their enemies will be evil, making effects that target evil foes more reliable.
I don't think either take is better than the other, but it's important to be consistent - the party should know how serious an evil alignment is and what the chances are that Holy Smite will work on those bandits that are killing innocent people to feed their own families.
in essence because she favors her charges over the lawful order or caste system she believes in chaos due to seeing the wrongness that the nobles impose from their order.
Disliking a particular ordered system doesn't mean you believe in chaos. Iomedae opposes diabolism not because she dislikes its order, but she dislikes the kind of order that encourages the strong to exploit the weak.
Lawful - A desire to see order and stability, to see things go unchanged. supporting the parties in power is lawful but so can supporting other legitimate parties or even yourself if you can be considered legitimate. Leaders want strict laws and for them to be followed, in general a nation will have a strong central governing body, with ideals of stability.
The character's stance appears to be that the party in power is not legitimate due to its abdication of its lawful responsibilities to treat the lower classes fairly - and her position is supported by the fact that the current system had her unjustly stripped of rank as a result of her attempt to restore legitimacy to the system.
EDIT: adding clarity, necessary due to ninja gobbos!
Gobbo ninjas are sneakiest ninjas.
The character's stance appears to be that the party in power is not legitimate due to its abdication of its lawful responsibilities to treat the lower classes fairly - and her position is supported by the fact that the current system had her unjustly stripped of rank as a result of her attempt to restore legitimacy to the system.
i've brought this up before, but being evil doesn't illegitimize you. If the character is simply fighting them because of their "evil" actions, then she's straight just trying to punish evil people. and law and chaos aren't involved.
people keep bringing up the gods, but Iomedae opposes Diabolism for the above reasons, she does not care how lawful or chaotic they carry out their practices just how evil they are.
the character has a root set in specifically that those in power must use that power responsibly, and feels that in the current system that is impossible and thus has resorted to murdering nobles secretly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which makes her chaotic why?
EDIT:
1) Being evil may not delegitimize you but ignoring your lawful obligations does. If the feudal system states that the baron receives labour from his vassals in exchange for protecting them from bandits, and the baron does nothing to protect his vassals from bandits, he us illegitimate based on failing to uphold his side of the social contract. This is true even if he is the legitimate heir of the last baron - feudalism involves continued obligations up and down the hierarchy.
2) The idea that those in power must use that power responsibly is a LG idea. A chaotic person would reject the idea that there should be people in power at all.
Which makes her chaotic why?
EDIT:
1) Being evil may not delegitimize you but ignoring your lawful obligations does. If the feudal system states that the baron receives labour from his vassals in exchange for protecting them from bandits, and the baron does nothing to protect his vassals from bandits, he us illegitimate based on failing to uphold his side of the social contract. This is true even if he is the legitimate heir of the last baron - feudalism involves continued obligations up and down the hierarchy.
2) The idea that those in power must use that power responsibly is a LG idea. A chaotic person would reject the idea that there should be people in power at all.
makes her at least in my eyes on the chaotic side of neutral because she has an ethical objection to the nobles.
1)the nobles are using their noble noble nobleness and exploiting that, the dragon guard or what ever still does their thing but the nobles on their off time as nobles are doing the crazy stuff.
2) you're confusing chaotic with chaotic stupid. a chaotic person can understand that governing bodies lead to good safe areas, they just specifically need to use that power to serve the people.
Iomedae (Lawful) opposes Diabolism (Lawful) for reasons unrelated to being lawful.
But Dragon-girl (Lawful) can't oppose nobles (probably lawful) for reasons unrelated to being lawful?
she opposes them because they're nobles and their evil, she doesn't specifically hunt anyone else. if they're just evil, she deals with them as town protector i'm guessing, but she takes special care to watch nobles and therefore distrusts authority figures. ergo, making her chaotic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go with a big 'ole LE.
The defining parts of the character (as she stands at the end of her story) appear to be her hatred and rage towards nobles and her struggle to justify their murder.
The fact that she seems to be looking for an excuse to kill them (disrespect=death penalty) pretty firmly cements her as evil in my book, while the fact that she refuses to let herself kill them if they act as exemplars of her own code and doesn't seek to tear down the institutions that harmed her, but their flawed representatives agains shows her as evil.
I agree that Lawful-Chaotic is kinda nebulous for her (like with most characters due to the many contradictory ideas of that continuum floating around), but honestly she's a serial killer and I can't see her not pinging ye olde Detect Evil.
I'd go with a big 'ole LE.
The defining parts of the character (as she stands at the end of her story) appear to be her hatred and rage towards nobles and her struggle to justify their murder.
The fact that she seems to be looking for an excuse to kill them (disrespect=death penalty) pretty firmly cements her as evil in my book, while the fact that she refuses to let herself kill them if they act as exemplars of her own code and doesn't seek to tear down the institutions that harmed her, but their flawed representatives agains shows her as evil.
I agree that Lawful-Chaotic is kinda nebulous for her (like with most characters due to the many contradictory ideas of that continuum floating around), but honestly she's a serial killer and I can't see her not pinging ye olde Detect Evil.
it's been clarified that disrespect means extortion and assault.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Extortion and assault (with non-lethal force) are generally not capital offenses - even in medieval times when punishments were very harsh by our standards you're looking at public humiliation, branding, flogging or perhaps losing a hand or ear.
1)the nobles are using their noble noble nobleness and exploiting that, the dragon guard or what ever still does their thing but the nobles on their off time as nobles are doing the crazy stuff.
I don't follow.
I believe the character is generalizing her experience with the Dragon Guard neglecting their very specific individual duties to the belief that nobles are neglecting their less well-defined duties. Does that address your point?
2) you're confusing chaotic with chaotic stupid. a chaotic person can understand that governing bodies lead to good safe areas, they just specifically need to use that power to serve the people.
No, I'm talking about chaotic ideals. A chaotic person can accept that in some circumstances governing bodies may be an unfortunate necessity, but government is contrary to the chaotic ideal, meaning any government you find necessary should have minimum power and if you can make do without a governing body you should not have one. And where you must have government, a chaotic person would prefer a direct democracy where every individual has equal and immediate power in decision-making, rather than even a republic where you invest your power in another person. (Though respect for expertise is compatible with a chaotic ideal and community experts may have a good deal of soft power in advising others.)
As an example, look at the difference between the Catholic church and the Society of Friends (Quakers).
The Catholic Church has a very well-defined hierarchy involving priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope, with well-defined rules for advancement up the hierarchy, and the hierarchy is based on the idea that priests and in particular the pope have a special relationship with God and are invested with the power to mediate between God and laypersons. It's a lawful religion - the hierarchy is considered an important part of worship.
Friends don't have priests. They may have congregational leaders, but those leaders don't have extra power, they're just the people willing to coordinate things or file the paperwork necessary to officiate weddings. Major decisions are made through consensus - the community gets together and talks over things until everyone agrees. All members of the community are considered equal, and anyone is equally permitted to speak at a worship service (there is no sermon). It's a chaotic religion - it rejects the idea of hierarchy.
In the middle we have many other Protestant Christian denominations, which generally have ministers with a formal leadership role and power within the congregation, but these ministers aren't the only path to salvation, they're just helpers.
Of course individuals exist on a continuum, so not all chaotic persons reject all government.
Extortion and assault (with non-lethal force) are generally not capital offenses - even in medieval times when punishments were very harsh by our standards you're looking at public humiliation, branding, flogging or perhaps losing a hand or ear.
as has been argued before she has 3 options, resist the nobles by killing them and leave no witnesses(OP said they would be tracked and killed out of town), assault them and leave witnesses allowing the nobles to track it back to her and the town, or simply give up. When you can't trust the law and take it into your own hands that is a chaotic individual. Killing them is the only sustainable way, and thus is neutral as it's self preservation while upholding her ideals, very extreme sure, but not black and white evil.
2) you're confusing chaotic with chaotic stupid. a chaotic person can understand that governing bodies lead to good safe areas, they just specifically need to use that power to serve the people.No, I'm talking about chaotic ideals. A chaotic person can accept that in some circumstances governing bodies may be an unfortunate necessity, but government is contrary to the chaotic ideal, meaning any government you find necessary should have minimum power and if you can make do without a governing body you should not have one. And where you must have government, a chaotic person would prefer a direct democracy where every individual has equal and immediate power in decision-making, rather than even a republic where you invest your power in another person. (Though respect for expertise is compatible with a chaotic ideal and community experts may have a good deal of soft power in advising others.)
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
what about any of that requires anarchy or libertarianism? they want a governing body that has ideals of freedom and is adaptable and flexible to the people. the positive side of chaos i think is forward thinkers, even though they aren't really mentioned. this is what annoys me, chaos get's the "on the down side" a lot, but never really protrays the upside on chaos. they aren't all completely reckless and codeless, they're just adaptable and willing to change.
for instance a chaotic leader during drought would be more willing to try strange methods of gaining food and water, while the lawful person would be more inclined to press home what they know will work eventually.
(didn't really understand what the quakers bit was about, but i'd argue that their still very lawful, just not seemingly on an organizational basis or to the extent of the church)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.
Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems....
The "unfettered personal freedom" and "resentment towards legitimate authority" described in the Chaos section is pretty libertarian.
And no, that doesn't mean reckless or codeless. We've got a CN alchemist in the party who was specifically described as "Libertarian, if that existed in this setting." He thinks that the government should stay out of peoples' business, is very meticulous, and holds himself to a high standard of excellence as a physician. He is a keen innovator but opposes automation, believing it undermines the individual pursuit of craftsmanship. He is, as a whole, less reckless than the NG oracle who has no interest in government.
The Quakers bit was about demonstrating how you can have an organization or community that functions and is not reckless or codeless, but also lacks a hierarchical government in that every member has equal governing power (not just in a one person one vote sense but in direct decision making). To what extent would you argue that Quakers are lawful?
Adaptability is a separate issue (and part of the problem with the law/chaos description is the way it smushes together ideas like freedom and adaptability which aren't strongly correlated.)
EDIT:
as has been argued before she has 3 options, resist the nobles by killing them and leave no witnesses(OP said they would be tracked and killed out of town), assault them and leave witnesses allowing the nobles to track it back to her and the town, or simply give up. When you can't trust the law and take it into your own hands that is a chaotic individual.
There's a difference between not trusting a particular legal system and not trusting "the law" (more properly, order) as a concept.
Killing them is the only sustainable way, and thus is neutral as it's self preservation while upholding her ideals, very extreme sure, but not black and white evil.
If she's in a position to anonymously kill them, she's in a position to anonymously humiliate them. OP's description made it pretty clear that she's not killing as a last resort, she wants to kill and is looking for an excuse. And I really doubt that she can kill anonymously - in a standard PF setting there are lots of divinations that could at least lead investigators in the direction of the town once nobles go missing.
I've change my mind she's probably TN. After i've mulled over what some people have said, it's true she probably doesn't care about chaotic ideals so much to actually be chaotic, and is merely shunted out of lawful.(i think it's kestral's comment on zero evidence distrusting all authority figures, we just only have one group of authority figures to look at, but I don't think that's enough to be chaotic.)
anyway i imagine chaos to represent rational free thinking while law is traditional belief thinking. when going after governing and belief systems. meaning the Quakers to me feel really lawful even with their loose governing.
I also don't believe chaos in it's entirety only allows for anarchy or complete democracy. there are many more government types i believe are chaotic in nature, those being representation and even merchant republics. on the CE scale there are warbands and piracy(they had a ton of rules but mutiny was something captains were actually told about and were allowed to stand down, pirate ships had very fluid command structures). whil Chaotic good, would prefer Utopian, Effective socialism, or possibly philosopher Kingdoms.
The character in the OP is evil.
Those who try to explain her motivations to rationalize a neutral(ish) alignment are glossing over and/or ignoring the fact that she repeatedly and regularly engages in the pre-meditated murder of other sentient beings. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and actions speak louder than words.
this has been cleared up to be false, it doesn't happen often and it's only for egregious offenses.
likewise evil (in pathfinder) is killing "when it is convenient" she specifically kills unconvenient targets.
So you are suggesting that killing isn't murder if it is a little difficult to do?The character in the OP is evil.
Those who try to explain her motivations to rationalize a neutral(ish) alignment are glossing over and/or ignoring the fact that she repeatedly and regularly engages in the pre-meditated murder of other sentient beings. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and actions speak louder than words.
this has been cleared up to be false, it doesn't happen often and it's only for egregious offenses.
likewise evil (in pathfinder) is killing "when it is convenient" she specifically kills unconvenient targets.
i'm suggesting if your not killing for sport(or because taking them to jail would be too hard), then murder isn't necessarily evil. Specifically the character in question only kills nobles that are being oppressive or assaulting common folk and does so in a manner to make sure it can't be brought back onto the town.
in essence she's killing people who already register in the evil scale and in a way to try to help the common folk.
Killing for your country is honorable, but killing for your townsmen is wicked?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For comparisons sake, lets take a similar yet different scenario: a gang of outlaws is going around, roughing up townspeople, threatening themselves to what they want and strotting around like they own the village. They havent killed anyone in the village so far, but they run a large protection/extortion scheme and when a member tried to leace, they unsuccessfully tried to kill her.
The king has hired you, a group of adventurers, to go take them out.
Would the gang be evil? Why/why not?
Would the members of the gang that might not actively participate, but neither try to stop them or leave the gang, be evil? Why/why not?
Would the king be evil? Why/why not?
Would the adventurers be evil, should they accept? Why/why not?
Would the adventurers be justified in beig skeptical and on their guard against any members of the gang, even before they have witnessed that particular person beat/rob anyone? Why/why not?
Would things change if the king asked the party to take out the members discreetly, so as not to warn their accomplices and scare the public? Why/why not?
This is of course ignoring other actions the party or the king or the outlaws might have taken, just considering these things.
Killing when it's not neccessary to do so? Damm yes!
Killing for your country is honorable, but killing for your townsmen is wicked?
it's necessary to uphold her ideals, which are chaotic good tinged.
on top of that, when's the last time killing for your country has actually been necessary?
Nothing is ever just "necessary". Rhings can be necessary for X, ad what X is is often implied, but in these kids of discussions its often good to state them outright. For example "necessary to keep oneself alive" or "necessary to uphold the ones violent dominance over a geographical area".
But its better to state these outright.
I hate this idea that evil characters can't love others, or feel strongly about protecting their village, or care. Or that they would be willing to sacrifice all of those things if 'it got in the way of their plans'.
You can absolutely be a LE character who would lay down their life to protect their village and family. Especially if you're willing to crack open the ribcage of every and any one who so much as looks at them the wrong way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jd_0ZChHmY#t=6m28s
How does she react to people other than nobles mistreating commoners? If a group of mercenaries came through her village and started pushing people around would she react with the same level of violence? If she reacts the same way towards anyone mistreating the commoners then there may be some validity to seeing her as neutral. If on the other hand she kills a noble for what she others get away that seems more like evil.
Targeting someone based on their birth is just as wrong if the person has an advantages birth as if their birth was less than advantages. If she kills a noble for what she would accept in a commoner than she is just as bad as the evil she hates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's necessary to uphold her ideals, which are chaotic good tinged.Killing when it's not neccessary to do so? Damm yes!
Killing for your country is honorable, but killing for your townsmen is wicked?
Her ideals (law applies to everyone equally, people who break their word should be punished, people who break the law or code shouldn't be able to buy their way out) are actually quite lawful.
It's the way she reacts to them being cast aside that is arguably Neutral or Chaotic. Personally, I still see her as quite Lawful, but we've already discussed this a lot and we aren't getting anywhere on it.
Point is, the issue isn't the ideals. It's, well, how she enforces them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If she reacts the same way towards anyone mistreating the commoners then there may be some validity to seeing her as neutral. If on the other hand she kills a noble for what she others get away that seems more like evil.
Isn't that more chaotic? Enforcing laws differently for different people isn't evil, it's chaotic (and highly unfair). You're breaking rules as you see fit. It's the punishment (and potentially excessive nature thereof) that is arguably evil.
Again, it seems like people just hear "hates the rich" and "breaks the law" and think "Chaotic Robin Hood". Nevermind that the current law enforcers are insanely corrupt and the rich (the nobility, technically—far from the same thing) are basically free to break whatever laws they want.
She's Lawful or Neutral because she's trying to uphold laws that she thinks should be applying to everyone equally. She's Evil or Neutral because she's pretty draconian with those laws.